From in silico target prediction to multi-target drug design: Current databases, methods and applications

Journal of Proteomics

Volumn 74, Issue 12, 2011, Pages 2554-2574

  Koutsoukas, Alexios ^a   Simms, Benjamin ^b   Kirchmair, Johannes ^a   Bond, Peter J ^a   Whitmore, Alan V ^c,d   Zimmer, Steven ^c   Young, Malcolm P ^c,e   Jenkins, Jeremy L ^b   Glick, Meir ^b   Glen, Robert C ^a   Bender, Andreas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b NOVARTIS INSTITUTES FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH   (United States)

^c Long Hanborough   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^e NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

In silico; Mode of action; Off targets; Polypharmacology; Target fishing; Target prediction

Indexed keywords

ANTIINFECTIVE AGENT; CYTOCHROME P450; G PROTEIN COUPLED RECEPTOR; GELATINASE B; HISTONE DEACETYLASE INHIBITOR; HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS PROTEINASE INHIBITOR; INDIRUBIN; LIGAND; NONNUCLEOSIDE REVERSE TRANSCRIPTASE INHIBITOR; ORPHAN DRUG; PEROXISOME PROLIFERATOR ACTIVATED RECEPTOR; RNA DIRECTED DNA POLYMERASE INHIBITOR;

AMINO ACID ANALYSIS; ANTIBACTERIAL ACTIVITY; BACTERIAL GROWTH; BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY; CELL CYCLE PROGRESSION; CHRONIC MYELOID LEUKEMIA; COMPETITIVE INHIBITION; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTER MODEL; DATA BASE; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG TARGETING; ENZYME SUBSTRATE; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; HYDROGEN BOND; INFLAMMATION; LIGAND BINDING; MACHINE LEARNING; MOLECULAR DOCKING; MOLECULAR INTERACTION; PHARMACOPHORE; PHENOTYPE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN DEGRADATION; PROTEIN DOMAIN; PROTEIN PROCESSING; PROTEIN PROTEIN INTERACTION; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; PROTEIN TARGETING; REVIEW; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; STRUCTURAL PROTEOMICS; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS; SUPPORT VECTOR MACHINE; THERMODYNAMICS;

ANIMALS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; HUMANS;

EID: 81055140589     PISSN: 18743919     EISSN: 18767737     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jprot.2011.05.011     Document Type: Review

References (157)

1. Winau F., Westphal O., Winau R. Paul Ehrlich-in search of the magic bullet. Microbes Infect 2004, 6:786-789.
2. Kaufmann S.H. Paul Ehrlich: founder of chemotherapy. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2008, 7:373.
3. Fischer E. Einfluss der Configuration auf die Wirkung der Enzyme. Ber Dtsch Chem Ges 1894, 27:2985-2993.
4. Paolini G.V., Shapland R.H., van Hoorn W.P., Mason J.S., Hopkins A.L. Global mapping of pharmacological space. Nat Biotechnol 2006, 24:805-815.
5. Keiser M.J., Roth B.L., Armbruster B.N., Ernsberger P., Irwin J.J., Shoichet B.K. Relating protein pharmacology by ligand chemistry. Nat Biotechnol 2007, 25:197-206.
6. Morphy R., Kay C., Rankovic Z. From magic bullets to designed multiple ligands. Drug Discov Today 2004, 9:641-651.
7. Azzaoui K., Hamon J., Faller B., Whitebread S., Jacoby E., Bender A., et al. Modeling promiscuity based on in vitro safety pharmacology profiling data. Chem Med Chem 2007, 2:874-880.
8. Mestres J., Gregori-Puigjane E., Valverde S., Sole R.V. The topology of drug-target interaction networks: implicit dependence on drug properties and target families. Mol Biosyst 2009, 5:1051-1057.
9. Kubinyi H. Drug research: myths, hype and reality. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2003, 2:665-668.
10. Klabunde T., Evers A. GPCR antitarget modeling: pharmacophore models for biogenic amine binding GPCRs to avoid GPCR-mediated side effects. ChemBioChem 2005, 6:876-889.
11. Kola I., Landis J. Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates?. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2004, 3:711-715.
12. Hopkins A.L. Network pharmacology. Nat Biotechnol 2007, 25:1110-1111.
13. Zhang X., Crespo A., Fernandez A. Turning promiscuous kinase inhibitors into safer drugs. Trends Biotechnol 2008, 26:295-301.
14. Morphy R. Selectively nonselective kinase inhibition: striking the right balance. J Med Chem 2010, 53:1413-1437.
15. Karaman M.W., Herrgard S., Treiber D.K., Gallant P., Atteridge C.E., Campbell B.T., et al. A quantitative analysis of kinase inhibitor selectivity. Nat Biotechnol 2008, 26:127-132.
16. Bantscheff M., Eberhard D., Abraham Y., Bastuck S., Boesche M., Hobson S., et al. Quantitative chemical proteomics reveals mechanisms of action of clinical ABL kinase inhibitors. Nat Biotechnol 2007, 25:1035-1044.
17. McLean S.R., Gana-Weisz M., Hartzoulakis B., Frow R., Whelan J., Selwood D., et al. Imatinib binding and cKIT inhibition is abrogated by the cKIT kinase domain I missense mutation Val654Ala. Mol Cancer Ther 2005, 4:2008-2015.
18. Petrelli A., Giordano S. From single- to multi-target drugs in cancer therapy: when aspecificity becomes an advantage. Curr Med Chem 2008, 15:422-432.
19. Kruisselbrink J.W., Emmerich M.T.M., Back T., Bender A., Ijzerman A.P., Van der Horst E. Combining aggregation with Pareto optimization: a case study in evolutionary molecular design. Lect Notes Comput Sci 2009, 5467:453-467.
20. Rolland C., Gozalbes R., Nicolai E., Paugam M.F., Coussy L., Barbosa F., et al. G-protein-coupled receptor affinity prediction based on the use of a profiling dataset: QSAR design, synthesis, and experimental validation. J Med Chem 2005, 48:6563-6574.
21. ChEMBL database Accessible at. http://www.ebi.ac.uk/chembl/.
22. Bender A. Databases: compound bioactivities go public. Nat Chem Biol 2010, 6:309.
23. Wang Y., Xiao J., Suzek T.O., Zhang J., Wang J., Bryant S.H. PubChem: a public information system for analyzing bioactivities of small molecules. Nucleic Acids Res 2009, 37:W623-W633.
24. Seiler K.P., George G.A., Happ M.P., Bodycombe N.E., Carrinski H.A., Norton S., et al. ChemBank: a small-molecule screening and cheminformatics resource database. Nucleic Acids Res 2008, 36:D351-D359.
25. Jenkins J.L., Bender A., Davies J.W. In silico target fishing: predicting biological targets from chemical structure. Drug DiscovToday: Technol 2007, 3:413-421.
26. Kuhn M., Campillos M., Gonzalez P., Jensen L.J., Bork P. Large-scale prediction of drug-target relationships. FEBS Lett 2008, 582:1283-1290.
27. Klipp E., Wade R.C., Kummer U. Biochemical network-based drug-target prediction. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2010, 21:511-516.
28. Williams A.J. Public chemical compound databases. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 2008, 11:393-404.
29. Kuhn M., Campillos M., Letunic I., Jensen L.J., Bork P. A side effect resource to capture phenotypic effects of drugs. Mol Syst Biol 2010, 6:343.
30. Chen B., Dong X., Jiao D., Wang H., Zhu Q., Ding Y., et al. Chem2Bio2RDF: a semantic framework for linking and data mining chemogenomic and systems chemical biology data. BMC Bioinformatics 2010, 11:255.
31. von Eichborn J., Murgueitio M.S., Dunkel M., Koerner S., Bourne P.E., Preissner R. PROMISCUOUS: a database for network-based drug-repositioning. Nucleic Acids Res 2010, 39:D1060-D1066.
32. Choi J., Davis M.J., Newman A.F., Ragan M.A. A semantic web ontology for small molecules and their biological targets. J Chem Inf Model 2010, 50:732-741.
33. Willett P., Barnard J.M., Downs G.M. Chemical similarity searching. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1998, 38:983-996.
34. Bender A., Glen R.C. Molecular similarity: a key technique in molecular informatics. Org Biomol Chem 2004, 2:3204-3218.
35. Martin Y.C., Kofron J.L., Traphagen L.M. Do structurally similar molecules have similar biological activity?. J Med Chem 2002, 45:4350-4358.
36. Sastry M., Lowrie J.F., Dixon S.L., Sherman W. Large-scale systematic analysis of 2D fingerprint methods and parameters to improve virtual screening enrichments. J Chem Inf Model 2010, 50:771-784.
37. Bender A., Jenkins J.L., Scheiber J., Sukuru S.C., Glick M., Davies J.W. How similar are similarity searching methods? A principal component analysis of molecular descriptor space. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49:108-119.
38. Bender A. How similar are those molecules after all? Use two descriptors and you will have three different answers. Exp Op Drug Disc 2010, 5:1141-1151.
39. Liu T., Lin Y., Wen X., Jorissen R.N., Gilson M.K. BindingDB: a web-accessible database of experimentally determined protein-ligand binding affinities. Nucleic Acids Res 2007, 35:D198-D201.
40. Nidhi, Glick M., Davies J.W., Jenkins J.L. Prediction of biological targets for compounds using multiple-category Bayesian models trained on chemogenomics databases. J Chem Inf Model 2006, 46:1124-1133.
41. Bender A., Mussa H.Y., Glen R.C., Reiling S. Molecular similarity searching using atom environments, information-based feature selection, and a naive Bayesian classifier. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2004, 44:170-178.
42. Nigsch F., Bender A., Jenkins J.L., Mitchell J.B. Ligand-target prediction using Winnow and naive Bayesian algorithms and the implications of overall performance statistics. J Chem Inf Model 2008, 48:2313-2325.
43. Poroikov V., Filimonov D., Lagunin A., Gloriozova T., Zakharov A. PASS: identification of probable targets and mechanisms of toxicity. SAR QSAR Environ Res 2007, 18:101-110.
44. Keiser M.J., Setola V., Irwin J.J., Laggner C., Abbas A.I., Hufeisen S.J., et al. Predicting new molecular targets for known drugs. Nature 2009, 462:175-181.
45. DeGraw AJ, Keiser MJ, Ochocki JD, Shoichet BK, Distefano MD. Prediction and evaluation of protein farnesyltransferase inhibition by commercial drugs. J Med Chem.53:2464-71.
46. Wale N., Karypis G. Target fishing for chemical compounds using target-ligand activity data and ranking based methods. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49:2190-2201.
47. Plewczynski D., von Grotthuss M., Spieser S.A., Rychlewski L., Wyrwicz L.S., Ginalski K., et al. Target specific compound identification using a support vector machine. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 2007, 10:189-196.
48. Bender A., Young D.W., Jenkins J.L., Serrano M., Mikhailov D., Clemons P.A., et al. Chemogenomic data analysis: prediction of small-molecule targets and the advent of biological fingerprint. Comb Chem High-Throughput Screen 2007, 10:719-731.
49. Harris C.J., Stevens A.P. Chemogenomics: structuring the drug discovery process to gene families. Drug Discov Today 2006, 11:880-888.
50. Jacoby E., Mozzarelli A. Chemogenomic strategies to expand the bioactive chemical space. Curr Med Chem 2009, 16:4374-4381.
51. Mestres J. Computational chemogenomics approaches to systematic knowledge-based drug discovery. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 2004, 7:304-313.
52. van der Horst E., Okuno Y., Bender A., AP I.J. Substructure mining of GPCR ligands reveals activity-class specific functional groups in an unbiased manner. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49:348-360.
53. van der Horst E., Peironcely J.E., Ijzerman A.P., Beukers M.W., Lane J.R., van Vlijmen H.W., et al. A novel chemogenomics analysis of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) and their ligands: a potential strategy for receptor de-orphanization. BMC Bioinformatics 2010, 11:316.
54. Jacob L., Hoffmann B., Stoven V., Vert J.P. Virtual screening of GPCRs: an in silico chemogenomics approach. BMC Bioinformatics 2008, 9:363.
55. Zhao S, Li S. Network-based relating pharmacological and genomic spaces for drug target identification. PLoS One.5:e11764.
56. Weill N., Rognan D. Development and validation of a novel protein-ligand fingerprint to mine chemogenomic space: application to G protein-coupled receptors and their ligands. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49:1049-1062.
57. Gregori-Puigjane E., Mestres J. SHED: Shannon entropy descriptors from topological feature distributions. J Chem Inf Model 2006, 46:1615-1622.
58. Delgado-Soler L., Toral R., Tomas M.S., Rubio-Martinez J. RED: a set of molecular descriptors based on Renyi entropy. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49:2457-2468.
59. Gregori-Puigjane E., Mestres J. A ligand-based approach to mining the chemogenomic space of drugs. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 2008, 11:669-676.
60. Hu Y., Bajorath J. Combining horizontal and vertical substructure relationships in scaffold hierarchies for activity prediction. J Chem Inf Model 2011, 51:248-257.
61. Adamson G.W., Bush J.A. Method for relating the structure and properties of chemical compounds. Nature 1974, 248:406-407.
62. PipelinePilot 2007, Accelrys, San Diego.
63. Rollinger J.M. Accessing target information by virtual parallel screening-the impact on natural product research. Phytochem Lett 2009, 2:53-58.
64. KNIME, Knime.com, Zurich, Switzerland.
65. Inte:Ligand PharmacophoreDB, Inte:Ligand, Vienna, Austria.
66. Wolber G., Langer T. LigandScout: 3-D pharmacophores derived from protein-bound ligands and their use as virtual screening filters. J Chem Inf Model 2005, 45:160-169.
67. Sayle R.A. So you think you understand tautomerism?. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2010, 24:485-496.
68. Liu X., Ouyang S., Yu B., Liu Y., Huang K., Gong J., et al. PharmMapper server: a web server for potential drug target identification using pharmacophore mapping approach. Nucleic Acids Res 2010, 38:W609-W614.
69. Nettles J.H., Jenkins J.L., Bender A., Deng Z., Davies J.W., Glick M. Bridging chemical and biological space: "target fishing" using 2D and 3D molecular descriptors. J Med Chem 2006, 49:6802-6810.
70. Nettles J.H., Jenkins J.L., Williams C., Clark A.M., Bender A., Deng Z., et al. Flexible 3D pharmacophores as descriptors of dynamic biological space. J Mol Graph Model 2007, 26:622-633.
71. Kinnings S.L., Jackson R.M. ReverseScreen3D: a structure-based ligand matching method to identify protein targets. J Chem Inf Model 2011, 51:624-634.
72. Bender A., Mikhailov D., Glick M., Scheiber J., Davies J.W., Cleaver S., et al. Use of ligand based models for protein domains to predict novel molecular targets and applications to triage affinity chromatography data. J Proteome Res 2009, 8:2575-2585.
73. Prathipati P., Ma N.L., Manjunatha U.H., Bender A. Fishing the target of antitubercular compounds: in silico target deconvolution model development and validation. J Proteome Res 2009, 8:2788-2798.
74. Strombergsson H., Daniluk P., Kryshtafovych A., Fidelis K., Wikberg J.E., Kleywegt G.J., et al. Interaction model based on local protein substructures generalizes to the entire structural enzyme-ligand space. J Chem Inf Model 2008, 48:2278-2288.
75. van Westen G.J.P., Wegner J.K., IJzerman A.P., Van Vlijmen H.W.T., Bender A. Proteochemometric modeling as a tool for designing selective compounds and extrapolating to novel targets. Med Chem Commun 2010, 2:16-30.
76. Lapinsh M., Prusis P., Gutcaits A., Lundstedt T., Wikberg J.E.S. Development of proteo-chemometrics: a novel technology for the analysis of drug-receptor interactions. Biochim Biophys Acta-Gen Subj 2001, 1525:180-190.
77. Faulon J.L., Misra M., Martin S., Sale K., Sapra R. Genome scale enzyme-metabolite and drug-target interaction predictions using the signature molecular descriptor. Bioinformatics 2008, 24:225-233.
78. Rognan D. Structure-based approaches to target fishing and ligand profiling. Mol Inf 2010, 29:176-187.
79. Chen X., Ung C.Y., Chen Y.Z. Can an in silico drug-target search method be used to probe potential mechanisms of medicinal plant ingredients?. Nat Prod Rep 2003, 20:432-444.
80. Gao Z., Li H., Zhang H., Liu X., Kang L., Luo X., et al. PDTD: a web-accessible protein database for drug target identification. BMC Bioinformatics 2008, 9:104.
81. Kellenberger E., Rodrigo J., Muller P., Rognan D. Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy. Proteins 2004, 57:225-242.
82. Macchiarulo A., Nobeli I., Thornton J.M. Ligand selectivity and competition between enzymes in silico. Nat Biotechnol 2004, 22:1039-1045.
83. Warren G.L., Andrews C.W., Capelli A.-M., Clarke B., LaLonde J., Lambert M.H., et al. A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. J Med Chem 2006, 49:5912-5931.
84. Woods C.J., King M.A., Essex J.W. The configurational dependence of binding free energies: a Poisson-Boltzmann study of Neuraminidase inhibitors. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2001, 15:129-144.
85. Karplus M., McCammon J.A. Molecular dynamics simulations of biomolecules. Nat Struct Biol 2002, 9:646-652.
86. Kollman P. Free energy calculations: applications to chemical and biochemical phenomena. Chem Rev 1993, 93:2395-2417.
87. Shirts M.R., Mobley D.L., Chodera J.D. Alchemical free energy calculations: ready for prime time?. Ann Rep Comp Chem 2007, 3:41-59.
88. Chipot C. Free energy calculations in biological systems. How useful are they in practice?. Lect Notes Comput Sci Eng 2006, 49:185-211.
89. Bender A., Scheiber J., Glick M., Davies J.W., Azzaoui K., Hamon J., et al. Analysis of pharmacology data and the prediction of adverse drug reactions and off-target effects from chemical structure. ChemMedChem 2007, 2:861-873.
90. Schneider G., Tanrikulu Y., Schneider P. Self-organizing molecular fingerprints: a ligand-based view on drug-like chemical space and off-target prediction. Future Med Chem 2009, 1:213-218.
91. Poroikov V., Akimov D., Shabelnikova E., Filimonov D. Top 200 medicines: can new actions be discovered through computer-aided prediction?. SAR QSAR Environ Res 2001, 12:327-344.
92. Geronikaki A.A., Dearden J.C., Filimonov D., Galaeva I., Garibova T.L., Gloriozova T., et al. Design of new cognition enhancers: from computer prediction to synthesis and biological evaluation. J Med Chem 2004, 47:2870-2876.
93. Crisman T.J., Parker C.N., Jenkins J.L., Scheiber J., Thoma M., Kang Z.B., et al. Understanding false positives in reporter gene assays: in silico chemogenomics approaches to prioritize cell-based HTS data. J Chem Inf Model 2007, 47:1319-1327.
94. Young D.W., Bender A., Hoyt J., McWhinnie E., Chirn G.W., Tao C.Y., et al. Integrating high-content screening and ligand-target prediction to identify mechanism of action. Nat Chem Biol 2008, 4:59-68.
95. Feng Y., Mitchison T.J., Bender A., Young D.W., Tallarico J.A. Multi-parameter phenotypic profiling: using cellular effects to characterize small-molecule compounds. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2009, 8:567-578.
96. Kummel A., Gabriel D., Parker C.N., Bender A. Computational methods to support high-content screening: from compound selection and data analysis to postulating target hypotheses. Exp Op Drug Disc 2009, 4:5-13.
97. Roth B.L., Lopez E., Beischel S., Westkaemper R.B., Evans J.M. Screening the receptorome to discover the molecular targets for plant-derived psychoactive compounds: a novel approach for CNS drug discovery. Pharmacol Ther 2004, 102:99-110.
98. Vidal D., Mestres J. In silico receptorome screening of antipsychotic drugs. Mol Inf 2010, 29:543-551.
99. Lagunin A., Filimonov D., Poroikov V. Multi-targeted natural products evaluation based on biological activity prediction with PASS. Curr Pharm Des 2010, 16:1703-1717.
100. Sato T., Matsuo Y., Honma T., Yokoyama S. In silico functional profiling of small molecules and its applications. J Med Chem 2008, 51:7705-7716.
101. He Z., Zhang J., Shi X.H., Hu L.L., Kong X., Cai Y.D., et al. Predicting drug-target interaction networks based on functional groups and biological features. PLoS One 2010, 5:e9603.
102. Bleakley K., Yamanishi Y. Supervised prediction of drug-target interactions using bipartite local models. Bioinformatics 2009, 25:2397-2403.
103. Chen L., Qian Z., Fen K., Cai Y. Prediction of interactiveness between small molecules and enzymes by combining gene ontology and compound similarity. J Comput Chem 2010, 31:1766-1776.
104. Schuster D. 3D pharmacophores as tools for activity profiling. Drug Disc Today: Technol 2010, 7:e205-e211.
105. Steindl T.M., Schuster D., Laggner C., Langer T. Parallel screening: a novel concept in pharmacophore modeling and virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 2006, 46:2146-2157.
106. Steindl T.M., Schuster D., Laggner C., Chuang K., Hoffmann R.D., Langer T. Parallel screening and activity profiling with HIV protease inhibitor pharmacophore models. J Chem Inf Model 2007, 47:563-571.
107. Schuster D., Laggner C., Steindl T.M., Langer T. Development and validation of an in silico P450 profiler based on pharmacophore models. Curr Drug Discov Technol 2006, 3:1-48.
108. Waltenberger B., Schuster D., Paramapojn S., Gritsanapan W., Wolber G., Rollinger J.M., et al. Predicting cyclooxygenase inhibition by three-dimensional pharmacophoric profiling. Part II: identification of enzyme inhibitors from Prasaplai, a Thai traditional medicine. Phytomedicine 2010, 18:119-133.
109. Ehrman T.M., Barlow D.J., Hylands P.J. In silico search for multi-target anti-inflammatories in Chinese herbs and formulas. Bioorg Med Chem 2010, 18:2204-2218.
110. Rollinger J.M., Schuster D., Danzl B., Schwaiger S., Markt P., Schmidtke M., et al. In silico target fishing for rationalized ligand discovery exemplified on constituents of Ruta graveolens. Planta Med 2009, 75:195-204.
111. Muller P., Lena G., Boilard E., Bezzine S., Lambeau G., Guichard G., et al. In silico-guided target identification of a scaffold-focused library: 1,3,5-triazepan-2,6-diones as novel phospholipase A2 inhibitors. J Med Chem 2006, 49:6768-6778.
112. Chen X., Zhou H., Liu Y.B., Wang J.F., Li H., Ung C.Y., et al. Database of traditional Chinese medicine and its application to studies of mechanism and to prescription validation. Br J Pharmacol 2006, 149:1092-1103.
113. Chen Y.Z., Ung C.Y. Prediction of potential toxicity and side effect protein targets of a small molecule by a ligand-protein inverse docking approach. J Mol Graph Model 2001, 20:199-218.
114. Chen Y.Z., Zhi D.G. Ligand-protein inverse docking and its potential use in the computer search of protein targets of a small molecule. Proteins 2001, 43:217-226.
115. Zahler S., Tietze S., Totzke F., Kubbutat M., Meijer L., Vollmar A.M., et al. Inverse in silico screening for identification of kinase inhibitor targets. Chem Biol 2007, 14:1207-1214.
116. MacDonald M.L., Lamerdin J., Owens S., Keon B.H., Bilter G.K., Shang Z., et al. Identifying off-target effects and hidden phenotypes of drugs in human cells. Nat Chem Biol 2006, 2:329-337.
117. Ji Z.L., Wang Y., Yu L., Han L.Y., Zheng C.J., Chen Y.Z. In silico search of putative adverse drug reaction related proteins as a potential tool for facilitating drug adverse effect prediction. Toxicol Lett 2006, 164:104-112.
118. Olivero-Verbel J., Cabarcas-Montalvo M., Ortega-Zuniga C. Theoretical targets for TCDD: a bioinformatics approach. Chemosphere 2010, 80:1160-1166.
119. Lamb J., Crawford E.D., Peck D., Modell J.W., Blat I.C., Wrobel M.J., et al. The Connectivity Map: using gene-expression signatures to connect small molecules, genes, and disease. Science 2006, 313:1929-1935.
120. Li L., Zhou X., Ching W.K., Wang P. Predicting enzyme targets for cancer drugs by profiling human metabolic reactions in NCI-60 cell lines. BMC Bioinformatics 2010, 11:501.
121. Crisman T.J., Jenkins J.L., Parker C.N., Hill W.A., Bender A., Deng Z., et al. "Plate cherry picking": a novel semi-sequential screening paradigm for cheaper, faster, information-rich compound selection. J Biomol Screen 2007, 12:320-327.
122. Boucher H.W., Talbot G.H., Bradley J.S., Edwards J.E., Gilbert D., Rice L.B., et al. Bad bugs, no drugs: no ESKAPE! An update from the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2009, 48:1-12.
123. Barb A.W., Jiang L., Raetz C.R., Zhou P. Structure of the deacetylase LpxC bound to the antibiotic CHIR-090: time-dependent inhibition and specificity in ligand binding. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2007, 104:18433-18438.
124. Maggiora G.M., Petke J.D., Mestres J. A general analysis of field-based molecular similarity indices. J Math Chem 2002, 31:251-270.
125. Bender A., Jenkins J.L., Glick M., Deng Z., Nettles J.H., Davies J.W. "Bayes Affinity Fingerprints" improve retrieval rates in virtual screening and define orthogonal bioactivity space: when are multitarget drugs a feasible concept?. J Chem Inf Model 2006, 46:2445-2456.
126. Maggiora G.M. On outliers and activity cliffs-why QSAR often disappoints. J Chem Inf Model 2006, 46:1535.
127. Medina-Franco J.L., Martinez-Mayorga K., Bender A., Marin R.M., Giulianotti M.A., Pinilla C., et al. Characterization of activity landscapes using 2D and 3D similarity methods: consensus activity cliffs. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49:477-491.
128. Tiikkainen P., Markt P., Wolber G., Kirchmair J., Distinto S., Poso A., et al. Critical comparison of virtual screening methods against the MUV data set. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49:2168-2178.
129. Kauvar L.M., Higgins D.L., Villar H.O., Sportsman J.R., Engqvist-Goldstein A., Bukar R., et al. Predicting ligand binding to proteins by affinity fingerprinting. Chem Biol 1995, 2:107-118.
130. Fliri A.F., Loging W.T., Thadeio P.F., Volkmann R.A. Biological spectra analysis: linking biological activity profiles to molecular structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005, 102:261-266.
131. Fliri A.F., Loging W.T., Thadeio P.F., Volkmann R.A. Analysis of drug-induced effect patterns to link structure and side effects of medicines. Nat Chem Biol 2005, 1:389-397.
132. Plouffe D., Brinker A., McNamara C., Henson K., Kato N., Kuhen K., et al. In silico activity profiling reveals the mechanism of action of antimalarials discovered in a high-throughput screen. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2008, 105:9059-9064.
133. Ashburner M., Ball C.A., Blake J.A., Botstein D., Butler H., Cherry J.M., et al. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nat Genet 2000, 25:25-29.
134. Finnin M.S., Donigian J.R., Cohen A., Richon V.M., Rifkind R.A., Marks P.A., et al. Structures of a histone deacetylase homologue bound to the TSA and SAHA inhibitors. Nature 1999, 401:188-193.
135. Kijima M., Yoshida M., Sugita K., Horinouchi S., Beppu T. Trapoxin, an antitumor cyclic tetrapeptide, is an irreversible inhibitor of mammalian histone deacetylase. J Biol Chem 1993, 268:22429-22435.
136. Mencher S.K., Wang L.G. Promiscuous drugs compared to selective drugs (promiscuity can be a virtue). BMC Clin Pharmacol 2005, 5:3.
137. Wermuth C.G. Multitargeted drugs: the end of the "one-target-one-disease" philosophy?. Drug Discov Today 2004, 9:826-827.
138. Wermuth C.G. Selective optimization of side activities: the SOSA approach. Drug Discov Today 2006, 11:160-164.
139. Csermely P., Agoston V., Pongor S. The efficiency of multi-target drugs: the network approach might help drug design. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2005, 26:178-182.
140. Morphy R., Rankovic Z. Designed multiple ligands. An emerging drug discovery paradigm. J Med Chem 2005, 48:6523-6543.
141. Epplen J.T., Buitkamp J., Bocker T., Epplen C. Indirect gene diagnoses for complex (multifactorial) diseases-a review. Gene 1995, 159:49-55.
142. Kartal O., Ebenhoh O. Ground state robustness as an evolutionary design principle in signaling networks. PLoS One 2009, 4:e8001.
143. Shovman O., Levy Y., Gilburd B., Shoenfeld Y. Antiinflammatory and immunomodulatory properties of statins. Immunol Res 2002, 25:271-285.
144. Jia J., Zhu F., Ma X., Cao Z., Li Y., Chen Y.Z. Mechanisms of drug combinations: interaction and network perspectives. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2009, 8:111-128.
145. Morphy R., Rankovic Z. Designing multiple ligands - medicinal chemistry strategies and challenges. Curr Pharm Des 2009, 15:587-600.
146. Schrattenholz A., Groebe K., Soskic V. Systems biology approaches and tools for analysis of interactomes and multi-target drugs. Methods Mol Biol 2010, 662:29-58.
147. Ma X.H., Shi Z., Tan C., Jiang Y., Go M.L., Low B.C., et al. In-silico approaches to multi-target drug discovery: computer aided multi-target drug design, multi-target virtual screening. Pharm Res 2010, 27:739-749.
148. Przytycka T.M., Singh M., Slonim D.K. Toward the dynamic interactome: it's about time. Brief Bioinform 2010, 11:15-29.
149. Good D.M., Zubarev R.A. Drug target identification from protein dynamics using quantitative pathway analysis. J Proteome Res 2011, 10:2679-2683.
150. Wishart D.S., Knox C., Guo A.C., Shrivastava S., Hassanali M., Stothard P., et al. DrugBank: a comprehensive resource for in silico drug discovery and exploration. Nucleic Acids Res 2006, 34:D668-D672.
151. Mattingly C.J., Colby G.T., Forrest J.N., Boyer J.L. The Comparative Toxicogenomics Database (CTD). Environ Health Perspect 2003, 111:793-795.
152. Gunther S., Kuhn M., Dunkel M., Campillos M., Senger C., Petsalaki E., et al. SuperTarget and Matador: resources for exploring drug-target relationships. Nucleic Acids Res 2008, 36:D919-D922.
153. Chen X., Ji Z.L., Chen Y.Z. TTD: Therapeutic Target Database. Nucleic Acids Res 2002, 30:412-415.
154. Lim E., Pon A., Djoumbou Y., Knox C., Shrivastava S., Guo A.C., et al. T3DB: a comprehensively annotated database of common toxins and their targets. Nucleic Acids Res 2010, 38:D781-D786.
155. Lagunin A., Zakharov A., Filimonov D., Poroikov V. QSAR modelling of rat acute toxicity on the basis of PASS prediction. Mol Inf 2011, 30:241-250.
156. Geronikaki A., Druzhilovsky D., Zakharov A., Poroikov V. Computer-aided prediction for medicinal chemistry via the Internet. SAR QSAR Environ Res 2008, 19:27-38.
157. Bond P.J., Faraldo-Gomez J.D. Molecular mechanism of selective recruitment of SYK kinases by the membrane antigen-receptor complex. J Biol Chem 2011, 286:25872-25881.